All Purpose Schaefer Discussion Thread

[Guest cooby]

"He's so mysterious"




"I can hardly wait til Friday!"

[stevejrogers]

="Yancy Street Gang"] ="Frayed Knot"]I hope your (Yancy's) program has the ability to distinguish future votes for O. Hernandez without adding them to past (and possibly future as well) votes for A. Hernandez. Not back, cooby, at least not yet. I just stopped in to do my Friday Schaefering. I'm making a special Saturday cameo appearance because I forgot to mention yesterday what Frayed Knot apparently remembered. (Thanks, Frayed!) My spreadsheet will be able to distinguish between the Hernandezes. But the voters will have to help: When voting for Orlando Hernandez, please vote for OHernandez. Not dots, please. And no apostrophes, either. (He's not Irish.) Also, when and if Anderson Hernandez returns, please vote for him as AHernandez. Thanks. And I'll see you all again on Friday, if not sooner.

Also to add, do don't put "El Duque" even though it is a common name used for Orlando Hernandez, to the point where I'm sure if you asked some casual or non fan who Orlando Hernandez was they'd give you a blank stare, but say El Duque, they know exactly who you are talking about

[nymr83]

]And no apostrophes, either. (He's not Irish.)

O'Hernandez (or is it O'Duque?) is very upset at your ignorance of his Irish heritage. If you ever want him to pitch well for the Mets you're going to have to meet his demands:

1. Do not leave the apostrophe out of his name in Schaeffer voting.

2. On days O'Hernandez pitches, the Schaffer voting will be called the Guiness POTG voting, because Schaffer sucks and Guiness is Irish.

3. Mr. Met will be replaced by a drunken Leprechaun.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I noticed that some people voted O.Hernandez and others OHernandez.

I'll have to see how it goes, but I think the O.Hernandez will be a problem, because the period may be interpreted as a decimal point.

[seawolf17]

="Yancy Street Gang"]I noticed that some people voted O.Hernandez and others OHernandez. I'll have to see how it goes, but I think the O.Hernandez will be a problem, because the period may be interpreted as a decimal point.

Unless you want to give him "zero point hernandez" points, in which case that's fine. Even though that's not technically a number.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Or unless, in this unique case, we all agree to refer to him as El Duque.

[MFS62]

Speaking of the apostrophe, I've felt a little uneasy since joining the CPF.
Why?
Because there really should be an apostrophe before the "62" in my screen name. The apostrophe is used to indicate intentionally omitted characters (in this case the "19"). I mean, its not like I've been a Mets fan since the year sixty-two. I'm not that old, nor are they.

But when I registered on the old board, the apostrophe character was not allowed. Since then, I have had to live my life knowing that my screen name is not correct. This has led to untold angst, made worse by the membership of someone called *62.

I know the professional writers and editors who frequent this board have been whispering among themselves about this apparent gaffe on my part. This has been highly traumatic.
Please understand, it was not my fault.

Thank you.

****************************************************************************
We now return control of the original thread back to you.

Later

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Normally a non-RBI single isn't worth any Schaefer points, but I gave .25 to Milledge tonight because I felt that a first major league hit in his first major league game was worth a sip of beer.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

In case it got overlooked in the voting thread from Sunday's game, in the future please vote for Orlando Hernandez as "O Hernandez" or "OHernandez" without the period after the O.

Thanks!


Two games from May are still open for voting: Tuesday's loss to Arizona and Wednesday's 13-inning win.

Both games will close over the weekend, and then we'll have the announcement of May's Schaefer Mets Player of the Month.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

For the moment, we're all caught up with the season totals.

Two starting pitchers are currently leading the pack, with last year's winner, David Wright, a close third. Nobody's running away with the Schaefer Mets Player of the Year Award.



Season-to-date totals for 2006
Through game of May 31, 2006

Rank	Name	Points
1	Tom Glavine	40.50
2	Pedro Martinez	39.97
3	David Wright	38.52
4	Carlos Delgado	37.16
5	Carlos Beltran	35.48
6	Jos� Reyes	30.61
7	Xavier Nady	24.68
8	Paul Lo Duca	20.89
9	Duaner Sanchez	17.75
10	Steve Trachsel	17.66
11	Cliff Floyd	16.68
12	Billy Wagner	14.97
13	Jos� Valentin	13.10
14	Brian Bannister	12.69
15	Darren Oliver	12.37
16	Aaron Heilman	12.04
17	Endy Chavez	9.81
18	Kaz Matsui	7.97
19	Pedro Feliciano	6.59
20	Ramon Castro	6.09
21	Jorge Julio	5.37
22	Julio Franco	4.75
23	Chris Woodward	4.70
24	Victor Zambrano	4.66
25	Chad Bradford	4.40
26	Jeremi Gonzalez	3.25
27	Alay Soler	2.69
28	Heath Bell	2.58
29	Orlando Hernandez	1.65
30	John Maine	0.76
31	Anderson Hernandez	0.57
32	Lastings Milledge	0.44
33	Victor Diaz	0.32
34	Bartolome Fortunato	0.28
35	Jos� Lima	0.12

[Elster88]

Many Schaefer beliefs are being disproved this year.

[Elster88]

Stickying the threads is a good idea.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Thanks. Now let's see if it generates any votes.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I'll unsticky the three San Francisco Schaefer threads on Wednesday morning when the voting ends.

I hope they're not annoying anybody.

[nymr83]

i think everything should be stickied until voting is done.

[Elster88]

My plea: Do NOT give Valentin any points for yesterday's game!! (the 8-5 loss to the Dodgers)

[Elster88]

Valentin cost us the game!!

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

He surrendered two two-run homers?

He couldn't clean up in a messy relief situation?

[Elster88]

Well. Fine. Be logical.

Edit: I'm Ronnie Darling.

[Elster88]

But even if he didn't lose the entire game by himself, I'd argue that after his performance he doesn't deserve any Schaefer for yesterday's game.

I know not everyone has the chance to watch the game and not everyone reads the IGT's, and it's sometimes hard to get a handle on the game from the Box score. And I guess some people think his offensive production outweighs the impact of the errors to the point that he deserves beer. I'm just not one of them.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Without his double in the 2nd we'd have never been in the game to start with.

[Elster88]

From the 6/5/06 Schaefer thread.

Nymr83 wrote: ="Elster88"] I think a 5 is a little high (for Soler), but I can see the argument for it. I think 6 is too much. JMHO. i think 5 or 5.5 is about right, but i needed to vote 6 to balance out what i saw as the absurdly low 4's given

So essentially what you're saying is you change your vote to cancel out how other people vote?!

THIS, I have a problem with. Vote as you see fit....DO NOT vote to counter what other people vote. If other people think he only deserves 4, then that should taken into account in the average. If you adjust your vote then you cancel out what someone else's legitimate belief was.

It's not up to you to decide what is "absurdly low" or too high or whatever.

I know that I argue, sometimes too adamantly, when I disagree with someone's scoring, but that's part of the "debate and discussion". Adjusting your voting to cancel out what someone does is crossing the line into minimizing his view. I shouldn't change my vote from a 4 to a 3 because I saw people voting higher than I wanted. Doing that is unfair.

[nymr83]

i was kidding when i said that, i didn't edit my vote.
i think 7 innings of 1 run ball in a 4-1 game deserves 6 points.

[Elster88]

Then I shouldn't have gotten on your case so much. My bad.

[nymr83]

not your fault, its not always obvious when someone is kidding around here

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Elster88 wrote: And I guess some people think his offensive production outweighs the impact of the errors to the point that he deserves beer. I'm just not one of them.

That's cool. Reasonable minds can disagree about this. Just don't get apoplectic when some of us weigh different factors more heavily or lightly than you do.

[Guest sharpie]

What I don't like is when the Schaefer POTG poll itself begins with an admonition such as last Sunday's: Please don't give Jose Reyes any points because his error cost us the game.

Not that many people would give him points for his 1-for-6 and a stolen base necessarily, but don't start off a poll that way. We're all smart people here, we all have different ways of judging these things, if I thought that Jose's stolen base and hit negated his error I should be able to vote for it. And, by the way, I threw, I think, half a point to Valentin for last night's game for the reasons that Dickshot gave.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

That's a good point, sharpie.

A voting thread shouldn't have any instructions about who to vote for. The only appropriate comments at the opening of a thread should be the occassional reminder to vote for "Martinez" instead of "Pedro" (thankfully no longer needed) or to remember Orlando Hernandez' first initial.


Side note: Most commonly misspelled names in Schaefer voting:

1. Trachsel
2. Heilman
3. Delgado (there seems to be somebody who thinks his name is "Degado")

[Elster88]

ScarletKnight41 wrote: ="Elster88"] And I guess some people think his offensive production outweighs the impact of the errors to the point that he deserves beer. I'm just not one of them. That's cool. Reasonable minds can disagree about this.

Well yeah, that's what I was going for.

]Just don't get apoplectic when some of us weigh different factors more heavily or lightly than you do.

Elster88 - "He takes his Schaefer voting too seriously."

[Elster88]

="sharpie"]What I don't like is when the Schaefer POTG poll itself begins with an admonition such as last Sunday's: Please don't give Jose Reyes any points because his error cost us the game.

I think to call it an admonition is misleading and taking the remark way too seriously. I could've just said "I don't think Reyes should get points because his error cost us the game"---which is what I was going for. But where's the fun in a sentence like that?

Besides, whenever I wait until after people vote to post a remark then people get sensitive, feel that I am challenging their votes, and accuse me of getting apoplectic. And now posting ahead of time, specifically so no one can feel personally challenged or personally insulted, is considered "an admonition" or telling people how to vote. So you're damned either way.

Besides, would it really have made a difference if I posted my scores and then put the note requesting zero points for Reyes? Would it really have seemed less admonitory that way? Of course any time you post on the Internet the tone can easily be misinterpreted...so I'll agree to be more careful if more people agree not to be so easily offended.

I should have limited my remarks to the AP Schaefer thread for administrative ease, of course...but I'm sure the same bruised feelings would've (and have) resulted from posting similar comments in the AP thread.